All Your Church Are Belong To Us

[Luigi]

Okay.

I gotta go.

Ciao.

[Resurrexi]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Interior_Gesu_Rome.jpg[/img]

Edited February 21, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Slappo]

[quote name='Luigi' date='20 February 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1266731148' post='2060352']
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.
[/quote]

I think to bring back the sixteenth century or the sixteenth century mass would be a detriment to the Church. What we need to do is modify the Roman traditions to fit with the current needs of the Church. The problem is the current liturgy has lost a great bulk of the Roman traditions, so to modify the Roman traditions will require renewing some of the sixteenth century practices (ressourcement), while at the same time adapting them to the needs of the Church today (aggironamento). This will create organic growth and movement in the liturgy.

Edit: I'm gone for a while as well. I'm excited to read the responses of others to all our comments later.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Slappo

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Luigi' date='20 February 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1266731148' post='2060352']
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.
[/quote]

I do disagree with you there. As Apotheon hinted at in earlier post, the current OF liturgy, while completely valid and even beautiful when performed with the utmost effort, represents a break from the organically development of the liturgy in the West. And as I tried to emphasize in a preceding post, it is the opinion of some who have studied the issue that the first major break in this organic development actually occurred in 1570 with Pius VI's [i]Quo Primum[/i]. This is a great irony as [i]Quo Primum[/i] sought to prevent innovation and the nefarious influence of the protestant reformation form negatively impacting the liturgy...but in putting a dead-lock on the the natural, organic development of the liturgy which had slowly occurred in the preceding 1500 years this stagnation represented a break with tradition: the tradition of organic liturgical development.

I opine that we should look ever more closely back to 1570 (that is to the EF Missal including the small-scale reforms which occurred under Pius X and others) in order to regain inspiration for what the Holy Spirit was calling the Church to consider at Vatican II...it is in this that I think we will find a sustaining and organically developed liturgy for the modern Catholic world to grow with and in.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

I missed that church when I went to Rome...both times. Now I'm just gonna have to go back! Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Edited February 21, 2010 by Veridicus

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='21 February 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1266731798' post='2060366']
I do disagree with you there. As Apotheon hinted at in earlier post, the current OF liturgy, while completely valid and even beautiful when performed with the utmost effort, represents a break from the organically development of the liturgy in the West. And as I tried to emphasize in a preceding post, it is the opinion of some who have studied the issue that the first major break in this organic development actually occurred in 1570 with Pius VI's [i]Quo Primum[/i]. This is a great irony as [i]Quo Primum[/i] sought to prevent innovation and the nefarious influence of the protestant reformation form negatively impacting the liturgy...but in putting a dead-lock on the the natural, organic development of the liturgy which had slowly occurred in the preceding 1500 years this stagnation represented a break with tradition: the tradition of organic liturgical development.

I opine that we should look ever more closely back to 1570 (that is to the EF Missal including the small-scale reforms which occurred under Pius X and others) in order to regain inspiration for what the Holy Spirit was calling the Church to consider at Vatican II...it is in this that I think we will find a sustaining and organically developed liturgy for the modern Catholic world to grow with and in.
[/quote]

I quite agree with you, Veridicus. It is unfortunate that the counter-Reformation reforms put a stop on all organic development of the Liturgy. The Roman Missal was basically frozen in 1570. I wish that the local rites before 1370 would not have been suppressed, for there was a great deal of legitimate, holy, liturgical diversity in the late Middle Ages.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='20 February 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1266732184' post='2060374']
I quite agree with you, Veridicus. It is unfortunate that the counter-Reformation reforms put a stop on all organic development of the Liturgy. The Roman Missal was basically frozen in 1570. I wish that the local rites before 1370 would not have been suppressed, for there was a great deal of legitimate, holy, liturgical diversity in the late Middle Ages.
[/quote]


I believe the stop was necessary for a time. I believe the damper was put on for far too long however. 1570 to 1970 is an awfully long time. I think 50 years or even less would have been plenty.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Slappo' date='21 February 2010 - 01:19 AM' timestamp='1266733174' post='2060384']
I believe the stop was necessary for a time. I believe the damper was put on for far too long however. 1570 to 1970 is an awfully long time. I think 50 years or even less would have been plenty.
[/quote]

Yes, then we could have restored the Sequences. No need for a new penitential rite; just recycle "Laetabundus" for Christmas and I'd have been happy.

[tinytherese]

What I really detested in high school were those irreverent gymn masses where sometimes the priest didn't even bother with a homily, but had students perform a goofy and lame skit instead. I must say that I'd really like to read Papa Ben's "Spirit of the Liturgy."

[Veridicus]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='21 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266734318' post='2060390']
What I really detested in high school were those irreverent gymn masses where sometimes the priest didn't even bother with a homily, but had students perform a goofy and lame skit instead.
[/quote]
I know exactly what you mean. The fact that kids are performing skits in stead of receiving a sermon demonstrates the depth of the backwardness of our culture and the liturgical prerogative of less than orthodox priests. I was always told that even a weak Mass was gracious for the world...but my chilling memories of gym Masses makes me wonder if some Masses would have been better uncelebrated.


[quote name='tinytherese' date='21 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266734318' post='2060390']
I must say that I'd really like to read Papa Ben's "Spirit of the Liturgy."
[/quote]
You should read it; It's probably at your library...or [url="http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Liturgy-Joseph-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0898707846"]but it[/url]. But in in any case: read it.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='21 February 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1266734642' post='2060397']

I know exactly what you mean. The fact that kids are performing skits in stead of receiving a sermon demonstrates the depth of the backwardness of our culture and the liturgical prerogative of less than orthodox priests. I was always told that even a weak Mass was gracious for the world...but my chilling memories of gym Masses makes me wonder if some Masses would have been better uncelebrated.


[/quote]

Unfortunately, I'll probably have to sit through those again when I become a high school theology teacher. That is, unless I become a very big influence with campus ministry and even become head of the theology department.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='21 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1266735142' post='2060403']
Unfortunately, I'll probably have to sit through those again when I become a high school theology teacher. That is, unless I become a very big influence with campus ministry and even become head of the theology department.
[/quote]

Wacky Gym liturgies make me [img]http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif[/img].

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='21 February 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1266735313' post='2060407']
Wacky Gym liturgies make me [img]http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif[/img].
[/quote]

Oh, high school. Two more years and I'm outta here (Deo gratias!).

Edited February 21, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='21 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1266729851' post='2060320']

Again, I wonder what would have happened had the Council been called a few decades earlier.
[/quote]
This.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxzbUAo-MSQ[/media]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='20 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1266695328' post='2060016']


If the decisions rendered in the council allow for such a wide range of transgressions, especially where there weren't any before, how can we say that was a product of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit can preside over a council and yet the people can still willfully impose their own personal interests on it. Perhaps the instigation of the council itself was an act of the Holy Spirit, but I have a very hard time reconciling myself with the idea that the products of the council (as well as the human interpretation) were of the Holy Spirit. But then again, I don't know how explicit the Vatican is on the participation of the Holy Spirit in the council itself.
[/quote]
Read the article again. :)The decisions AFTER the council and the cultural shift happening at the same are what led to the problems. The 50 years following the Council of Trent were no picnic either, and were filled with great turmoil as well.