All Your Church Are Belong To Us

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='20 February 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1266698198' post='2060046']
How is the creation of a completely different missal a "reform" of the liturgy?
[/quote]

Ressourcement! Aggiorniomento! Get with le antiquarian programme!

In all seriousness, I would love to ask Annibale Bugnini and Paul VI this question.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Luigi' date='20 February 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1266727460' post='2060285']
I think a lot of people see a cause and effect relationship between Vatican II and what happened in the Church after it - that's natural to some extent, but on the other hand, the whole world was changing at the same time as the Vatican Council, and changing radically & rapidly.

The Civil Rights movement, the Viet Nam War protest movement, gay liberation, women's liberation, the pill, and efforts to eliminate colonialism in Africa and South America (to name just the most well-know) all occurred simultaneous with or shortly after the Vatican Council. Of course these aren't Catholic movements, but they would have occurred whether there ever was a Council or not. And whatever is going on in society is bound to have some impact on the Church - at least the individual practicing (or not) Catholics and perhaps various parts of the hierarchy, too. So whether John XXIII ever called a Vatican Council, the developments I mentioned would have had some impact on the Church. Since they occurred (nearly) simultaneously, many Catholics - especially those who are nostalgic for the good old days - blame any deterioration 9or even mere change) in the Church on the Council.

It woulda happened anyhow.
[/quote]

As was wisely done during at thereafter the Council of Trent, with what you said above, the Church should have stood fast and [b]resisted change[/b] during this crucial time. There's "changing with the times" and there's upholding that which is True, Good, and Holy.

What happened during Trent? The Protestants revolted (not reformed), and Trent, instead of changing anything, stood fast and laid a series of decrees upholding the Truth. What happened during Vatican II? Society introduced all new sorts of evils, and those in the Church pushed for all sorts of options within the liturgy, [b]pushing out the old and making room for the new[/b].

In history the Church does not push out the old to make room for the new, but sharpens that which is old like a blacksmith sharpens a blade. She adds clarity, puts a shine on her steel, polishes the blade, and goes back to war with that which is evil.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='21 February 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1266728602' post='2060297']
The social changes would have definitely impacted the laity within the Church whether the Council convened or not...however the liturgical reform may not 'have happened anyhow' as it did. To be honest, I lament that the liturgical movement could not have brought to fruition reasonable reform before the excrement hit the fan in the rest of the world during the 60s and 70s. I wonder how the Latin Church's 'OF' liturgy might be different were the Council convened 40yrs earlier than it was...perhaps between the Wars. If the liturgical reform could have been accomplished in the atmosphere of a more obedient Catholic laity, presbyterate, & episcopacy...alas.
[/quote]
That's my point, but you make it better than I do. I don't think we can blame the effort at liturgical reform and ecumenism for any abuses that followed it - the vast majority of the abuses happened in the countries where the social upheaval was happening, ergo, we should blame the social upheaval rather than the Council. I think you're right - if the Council had been called 40 years earlier, the litugical reform might have been brought to fruition without all the fruitiness.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='20 February 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1266728834' post='2060300']
Ressourcement! Aggiorniomento!
[/quote]

Totally read "Razing the Bastions" by Von Balthasar if you're able to get through it.



Edit: When I say "Totally" what I really mean is they needed to both happen simultaneously. We needed to plant one foot in our tradition (preferably with superglue and duct tape holding it there) and another in bringing that tradition up to date (aggiornamento). That way we do not lose the tradition but bring it to a shine, polish off the dust so to say.

Instead we bought a new sword and put the old one in the Vatican vault for 40 years.


Edit again:
This brings to mind an analogy: The never ending pot of chili. A restaurant has a chili pot that they never let go empty, instead of using all of the old chili and putting in new, when the chili gets low they mix the old with the new. There are always remnants of the old chili in the new batch being made. That is to say, the new batch is never made from scratch as it is always combined with the richness of that which has had time to age (it's a food analogy, think aging in a good way like wine, not like molding).

Instead what has happened is we poured out the old chili, cleaned out the pot, and made a completely new batch. The Novus Ordo and the Missa Extraordinaria are so dissimilar that they [b]almost[/b] deserve to be called separate rites in themselves.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Slappo

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='20 February 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1266728933' post='2060303']
What happened during Trent? The Protestants revolted (not reformed), and Trent, instead of changing anything, stood fast and laid a series of decrees upholding the Truth. What happened during Vatican II? Society introduced all new sorts of evils, and those in the Church pushed for all sorts of options within the liturgy, [b]pushing out the old and making room for the new[/b].
[/quote]

I agree that Trent was a time to dig heels in and stand by the bulwark of tradition and resist novelty...however such bearing down is not in the long haul without its effects. While I haven't finished the book yet, Alcuin Reid's "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" has given the view that the centuries following Pius VI's promulgation of [i]Quo Primum[/i] experienced an exceptional paucity of liturgical adjustment and that this cessation in the up-to-that-point organic development in the liturgy is what created the impetus for the drastic reform we have seen in the wake of the 2nd Vatican Council. It was the sudden stagnation in organic liturgical reform that led to the sentiment of disconnect between the people and the liturgy at the cusp of Vatican 2.

Unfortunately, rather than looking back to 1570, the implementors of Vatican II with the sociologists and archeologists and anthropologists and historians (all of the [i]experts[/i]) spearheaded the de-novo liturgical overhaul supposedly based on their impeccable information of how the liturgy was conducted in the first few centuries. They seemed to view anything after around 450AD as utterly decadent hyperclericalism or hyperrubricism.

Again, I wonder what would have happened had the Council been called a few decades earlier.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='20 February 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1266729150' post='2060309']
Edit: When I say "Totally" what I really mean is they needed to both happen simultaneously. We needed to plant one foot in our tradition (preferably with superglue and duct tape holding it there) and another in bringing that tradition up to date (aggiornamento). That way we do not lose the tradition but bring it to a shine, polish off the dust so to say.
[/quote]

I was being facetious when I wrote the "Aggiornamento! Ressourcement!" line as these taglines were as horribly misused as the "Spirit of the Council" kind of nonsense to justify every sort of innovation in the past few decades.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Slappo' date='21 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1266728933' post='2060303']
As was wisely done during at thereafter the Council of Trent, with what you said above, the Church should have stood fast and [b]resisted change[/b] during this crucial time. There's "changing with the times" and there's upholding that which is True, Good, and Holy.

What happened during Trent? The Protestants revolted (not reformed), and Trent, instead of changing anything, stood fast and laid a series of decrees upholding the Truth. What happened during Vatican II? Society introduced all new sorts of evils, and those in the Church pushed for all sorts of options within the liturgy, [b]pushing out the old and making room for the new[/b].

In history the Church does not push out the old to make room for the new, but sharpens that which is old like a blacksmith sharpens a blade. She adds clarity, puts a shine on her steel, polishes the blade, and goes back to war with that which is evil.
[/quote]

The Council of Trent was operating in largely Christian societies; the Vatican Council was operating in rotting societies. Only the bare outlines of the onslaught were visible during the Vatican Council; we can see pretty clearly now how bad things have gotten in western cultures - but the Church couldn't control any of the social decay because of the separation of Church and state in the western democracies. Also, the Council of Trent may have stopped the spread of Protestant thought within the Catholic monarchies, but it didn't regain any already-gone-Portestant countries for the Church.

Nor did the Council of Trent stop the Age of Enlightement (with its secular emphasis), the French Revolution (with its anti-clericalism), the Industrial Revolution, modernism, Communism (although it had a hand in the fall thereof), the smoking of marijuana, or the Rolling Stones'. Because the Church can't (and shouldn't have to) control all of society. The Church is still battling evil by teaching the Truth - which is its function - and I consider the reforming of the liturgy (celebrated with proper respect and so forth) to be the sharpening of the blade you mention above (although I don't like your imagery - it implies imminent beheadings or something ).

Edited February 21, 2010 by Luigi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='21 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266730271' post='2060330']
Also, the Council of Trent may have stopped the spread of Protestant thought within the Catholic monarchies, but it didn't regain any already-gone-Portestant countries for the Church.
[/quote]

Society of Jesus?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Luigi' date='20 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1266730271' post='2060330']
The Church is still battling evil by teaching the Truth - which is its function - and I consider the reforming of the liturgy (celebrated with proper respect and so forth) to be the sharpening of the blade you mention above [b](although I don't like your imagery - it implies imminent beheadings or something).[/b]
[/quote]

One of the main things I was pointing out is that the liturgy was not reformed; it was remade. They didn't dip tradition (the missa extraordinaria) in the refiners fire pulling out stronger than ever, instead they locked it in the Vatican vault and forged a new liturgy.


When I use the sword analogy I am thinking more the spiritual warfare, St. Michael style, Sword of the Spirit style analogy, not so much crusades.


And for purposes of theological clarity (which Apotheun might point out), when I say refining tradition, I'm talking small t not Tradition as in the deposit of faith.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='20 February 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1266730002' post='2060324']
I was being facetious when I wrote the "Aggiornamento! Ressourcement!" line as these taglines were as horribly misused as the "Spirit of the Council" kind of nonsense to justify every sort of innovation in the past few decades.
[/quote]

I see.

My first thoughts were my Theology of the Church class with Dr. Regis Martin in which we discussed the importance of both aggiornamento and ressourcement.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='20 February 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1266730490' post='2060337']
Society of Jesus?
[/quote]

They did good work and then got themselves disbanded. Now they're back and wacky. What gives?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='20 February 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1266730755' post='2060342']
I see.

My first thoughts were my Theology of the Church class with Dr. Regis Martin in which we discussed the importance of both aggiornamento and ressourcement.
[/quote]

Both words do have an appropriate and useful context; I was satirizing their misuse.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='21 February 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1266730806' post='2060344']
They did good work and then got themselves disbanded. Now they're back and wacky. What gives?
[/quote]

'Tis sad.

[Luigi]

"hen I use the sword analogy I am thinking more the spiritual warfare, St. Michael style, Sword of the Spirit style analogy, not so much crusades."

I did edit my post to include one of those cheesy gasping icons - my comment about the axe was mostly a jab (to continue the imagery of weaponry) rather than an argument.

I just think we'll never bring back the Sixteenth Century, and I don't think we need to bring back the Sixteenth Century Mass. I don't think it would do any good today, and I don't the Sixteenth Century was all that good in the first place.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Luigi' date='20 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1266730271' post='2060330']
The Council of Trent was operating in largely Christian societies; the Vatican Council was operating in rotting societies. Only the bare outlines of the onslaught were visible during the Vatican Council; we can see pretty clearly now how bad things have gotten in western cultures - but the Church couldn't control any of the social decay because of the separation of Church and state in the western democracies. Also, the Council of Trent may have stopped the spread of Protestant thought within the Catholic monarchies, but it didn't regain any already-gone-Portestant countries for the Church.

Nor did the Council of Trent stop the Age of Enlightement (with its secular emphasis), the French Revolution (with its anti-clericalism), the Industrial Revolution, modernism, Communism (although it had a hand in the fall thereof), the smoking of marijuana, or the Rolling Stones'. Because the Church can't (and shouldn't have to) control all of society. The Church is still battling evil by teaching the Truth - which is its function - and I consider the reforming of the liturgy (celebrated with proper respect and so forth) to be the sharpening of the blade you mention above (although I don't like your imagery - it implies imminent beheadings or something ).
[/quote]


I should respond to the bulk of this as well.

The Council of Trent did not control society at all, that wasn't its purpose and that wasn't was I was saying. What I was saying is when things outside the Church started changing, the Church didn't change with them, but stood fast in her roots.

I'm not saying Vatican II should have or even could have prevented social decay, but that Vatican II was intended to resist social decay. The implementation of Vatican II did not resist decay, but actually brought decay upon Roman traditions. "Oh [u]this is old and worthless[/u], we need to set it aside and use this new stuff." [b]No no no![/b] That is completely the wrong attitude. It should be, "This is [u]antique and priceless[/u], let us polish it, repair what may need repaired, and hold it close as our prize!"