A thought on the Liturgy

[popestpiusx]

I'll let you finish before I respond.

[theculturewarrior]

I just skimmed over this. Was "organic development" defined, or the Church's position on this before and after Vatican II?

[p0lar_bear]

pspx,

First, I would like to admit right off that I do not have any resources for what I'm saying. Well, I do, but I just don't have them with me and won't have access to them for quite a while (long story). So, if you ask for resources, I won't be able to give them to you simply because I can't remember the names and authors and all that.

Second, I'm not feeling well, so if anything doesn't make sense, I'd like to blame my sinuses which seem intent on exploding...:ill: ouch...or the drugs Although, I don't always make sense anyway, so it might not be fair to blame anything else...

Anyway, where was I...

Right Hippolytus...So, since Hippolytus was actually a faithful son of the Church for most of his life, and since he wrote his description of the liturgy before the whole anti-pope thing, his description stands as historical evidence of how liturgies were celebrated in the early Church. (Not to defend him or anything, but becoming an anti-pope then was a lot easier than it is now. Popes were basically declared by public acclimation...so it would kind of be like the whole Bush-Gore election fiasco...sorry...back to the topic...)

I'm not saying that the Tridentine rite liturgy was not an organic development of the early liturgies. Development isn't always adding things on, sometime real development is taking away what is no longer useful, what no longer serves its purpose (which doesn't necessarily means that it was wrong to put it in in the first place). Also, part of the reason the development from the missal of Pius V to the current missal was so dramatic was that the development was stagnated for 500 years. Because of the incredible changes in culture, education, understanding, etc. what was fitting for those in the 16th century is not necessarily fitting for those in the 20th century.

OK, I keep having to delete things because they don't make sense...so that's all for now. You can reply if you want. And if anyone wants to take up my part, feel free. As soon as I get better, I'll have less time for the computer, so I'm not sure how long I can keep up the conversation (no offense)...


theculturewarrior,

"organic development" isn't something that is exactly defined, it's just a basic principle.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Dec 3 2004, 03:44 AM'] pspx,

First, I would like to admit right off that I do not have any resources for what I'm saying. Well, I do, but I just don't have them with me and won't have access to them for quite a while (long story). So, if you ask for resources, I won't be able to give them to you simply because I can't remember the names and authors and all that.



[/quote]
I'll get some of my sources together and we'll see what we can come up with. I'm sure you have sources that make one case, and I can assure you that I do as well. This will probably be a case of us pitting our sources against eachother and trying to figure out which is more credible or accurate. By the way, I don't disagree with everything you posted. Some of it is indisputable. Some of it is, in my opinion, conjectural.


[quote]Second, I'm not feeling well, so if anything doesn't make sense, I'd like to blame my sinuses which seem intent on exploding...:ill: ouch...or the drugs   Although, I don't always make sense anyway, so it might not be fair to blame anything else...[/quote]

Don't worry about it. Get yourself well. This debate is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Get well and we'll go from there.