Thank you for a thoroughly thought-provoking read! That last quotation is so well chosen: "Fundamentally, we ourselves are the ones who need reform, not the liturgy."
If the traditional Roman liturgy "does not speak to modern man," as the critics of the traditional Mass and Divine Office claim, then it is not because there is something wrong with the liturgy; it is because there is something seriously wrong with modern man.
The problem with that thinking is - Novus Ordo doesn't speak for the modern man either. Otherwise the modern man would be in the church on sundays, but he is not.
"Making drastic modifications to consecrated, inherited rites regarded as supremely important for the well-being of society and the salvation of souls—such would utterly contravene the medieval ethos, which insisted that innovation be distrusted, tradition be respected, and the noble past be preserved"
Definitely true regarding the later medieval era of which you seem to speak. Curious if Dr. K's book discusses the earlier "drastic" reforms that developed those inherited rights - e.g. the Visigothic introduction of propers that specifically combat the heresy of Arianism and promote Marian theology?
Thank you for the comment. The early history of liturgical development is fraught with complexity and fragmentary records, but it seems only natural that changes would be less gradual during the period when rites were first approaching maturity, and when major heresies were a present or at least recent threat. Here is a relevant passage from Close the Workshop:
"Improvisation has not been a characteristic of the liturgy for 1,500 years or more. The evidence we have points to the relatively rapid development of fixed forms. The early Church was in a divinely-willed state of formation, and had wider and freer powers precisely because she was in an embryonic condition, growing rapidly and establishing her institutions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit guides her gently and gradually into set forms, which are the fairest flowers of those early developments. He prunes what is less worthy and nourishes what is more worthy. We should therefore expect, as time goes on, that the liturgy will become more and more solid, definite, fixed, and perfected."
of course the medieval ethos of which you speak also explains why the Mozarabs clung to their rite, that safeguarded the Faith while Spain was under Muslim rule, and resisted the imposition of the Roman rite.
Yes, the diversity of cherished liturgical traditions was a beautiful feature of the medieval Church. Efforts to replace venerable local rites with the Roman rite, such as occurred in France in the nineteenth century, are understandable to some degree but not something I am enthusiastic about. Medieval Catholicism was more faithful to the principle of subsidiarity and, it would seem, more sensitive to the need for harmony (within appropriate limits) between liturgical ritual and regional culture.
Thank you very much! Rupert von Deutz writed beutifully about how and why the paten in the Holy Mass is the Virgin Mary herself in his Liber de Divinis Officiis. The most beautiful thing I've ever read!
Thank you for a thoroughly thought-provoking read! That last quotation is so well chosen: "Fundamentally, we ourselves are the ones who need reform, not the liturgy."
If the traditional Roman liturgy "does not speak to modern man," as the critics of the traditional Mass and Divine Office claim, then it is not because there is something wrong with the liturgy; it is because there is something seriously wrong with modern man.
The problem with that thinking is - Novus Ordo doesn't speak for the modern man either. Otherwise the modern man would be in the church on sundays, but he is not.
You're welcome, Father, and thank you for this comment!
"Making drastic modifications to consecrated, inherited rites regarded as supremely important for the well-being of society and the salvation of souls—such would utterly contravene the medieval ethos, which insisted that innovation be distrusted, tradition be respected, and the noble past be preserved"
Definitely true regarding the later medieval era of which you seem to speak. Curious if Dr. K's book discusses the earlier "drastic" reforms that developed those inherited rights - e.g. the Visigothic introduction of propers that specifically combat the heresy of Arianism and promote Marian theology?
Thank you for the comment. The early history of liturgical development is fraught with complexity and fragmentary records, but it seems only natural that changes would be less gradual during the period when rites were first approaching maturity, and when major heresies were a present or at least recent threat. Here is a relevant passage from Close the Workshop:
"Improvisation has not been a characteristic of the liturgy for 1,500 years or more. The evidence we have points to the relatively rapid development of fixed forms. The early Church was in a divinely-willed state of formation, and had wider and freer powers precisely because she was in an embryonic condition, growing rapidly and establishing her institutions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit guides her gently and gradually into set forms, which are the fairest flowers of those early developments. He prunes what is less worthy and nourishes what is more worthy. We should therefore expect, as time goes on, that the liturgy will become more and more solid, definite, fixed, and perfected."
of course the medieval ethos of which you speak also explains why the Mozarabs clung to their rite, that safeguarded the Faith while Spain was under Muslim rule, and resisted the imposition of the Roman rite.
Yes, the diversity of cherished liturgical traditions was a beautiful feature of the medieval Church. Efforts to replace venerable local rites with the Roman rite, such as occurred in France in the nineteenth century, are understandable to some degree but not something I am enthusiastic about. Medieval Catholicism was more faithful to the principle of subsidiarity and, it would seem, more sensitive to the need for harmony (within appropriate limits) between liturgical ritual and regional culture.
Excellent! I still haven’t read that book of Dr K’s, but it’s on my soon-to-read list.
Thank you 😌✍🏼⏳🛰️
Tech should not always get a bad rap.⚡🖥️
Digital images of the Divine Liturgy made available across centuries and continents.
Grace and peace to you Amigo....
Thank you very much! Rupert von Deutz writed beutifully about how and why the paten in the Holy Mass is the Virgin Mary herself in his Liber de Divinis Officiis. The most beautiful thing I've ever read!
You're welcome, and thank you for sharing this thought-provoking highlight from the writings of Rupert.