(This is in response to post #84 above)
Hi Lazer,
Thanks for reading the von Hildebrand article. If you weren’t too impressed with it, I have no idea what would impress you. My disagreement with your idea that von Hildebrand is making subjective arguments for the TLM is complete and total. The idea that it is lacking in substance is laughable. People don’t get called a 20th Century Doctor of the Church by a Pope because their arguments lack substance.
Or, as Cardinal Ratzinger noted:
“I am personally convinced that, when, at some time in the future, the intellectual history of the Catholic Church is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.” From “The Dietrich von Hildebrand Life Guide.”
Von Hildebrand is making objective philosophical arguments (regardless of whether anyone agrees with him or not) in regards to items like what is true community and reverence.
But then, people can go to von Hildebrand’s article (link in signature line below) and judge for themselves.
I did read the article you linked. I suppose you owe me since it seemed to be about five times longer than von Hildebrand’s article.
Obviously I can’t critique the whole thing in the amount of space this forum allows.
Quite frankly, my impression is that Matt1618 (what’s his real name, by the way?) does know a lot of details about the liturgy and he can quote Fr. Jungmann, but he does not have a very good sense of what is great liturgy and what is not, nor does he seem to have a good sense of what is organic development or not.
To counteract what he is written I would recommend “The Organic Development of the Liturgy” by Dom Alcuin Reid (can be found on
Amazon.com).
He reminds me of a man who would say, “My wife is gorgeous! She is just stunning!” And when someone asks, “Great, can we tell by looking at her?” responds, “Oh no. But I will be doing a five part lecture series on why my wife is beautiful and then that should convince you.”
I believe it was von Hildebrand who noted that our age is not known for its poetry or beauty. Thus we should have been triply careful with how we handled the liturgy.
Obviously we weren’t. As von Hildebrand (I think) also noted the liturgical reform was not carried out by “religioso homini” or holy men with a real sense of the sacred. This does not mean they were unorthodox or heretical.
As far as the idea that the TLM contains “useless repitions” I would recommend Catherine Pitstock’s book “After Writing” (
Amazon.com).
As the Latin Mass Magazine noted about the book:
“The second half subjects the entire Mass text to a remarkably close, phrase-by-phrase, philosophical and theological analysis that turns the method of postmodern literary criticism in on itself. She concludes that the old Catholic liturgy is the ‘culmination’ of philosophy, art, literature, and life itself, and defends that position in a treatise that has astonished reviewers with its brilliance, erudition, and sheer intellectual rigor.”
I note this book because she deals with the whole issue of “useless repitition.”
The Canon of Hippolytus and the other canons are mentioned a number of times in the article you linked and so I would like to quote from an article by Fr. Joseph Fessio (of Ignatius Press fame):
"Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in
Mediator Dei.
The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was enormous. But they totally invented the canon. It would be like taking piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece of some tree, then putting them together and saying, “Well, you see that? It’s organic.” But it’s not organic; it’s constructed."
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
Hmmm… that’s interesting. So Fr. Vagaggini, who took part in constructing canon three, is the very same Fr. Vagaggini Matt1618 constantly quotes about how deficient the TLM is. No wonder we ended up with the liturgy we did.
The overall impression of the article you linked is that the TLM and its canon are rather illogical and incoherent and thank God the committee of Vatican II finally corrected things by revising the liturgy and coming up with new Eucharistic prayers.
I do believe the NO is valid. I hope it is celebrated in such a way that it appears as close as possible to the TLM (as apparently happened in Poland).
God bless.
)
I think though, that the truth is that “organic” is not an easy concept to define. Indeed, some people when they say organic mean that there should be virtually no change, that any and all change should be tiny. It should preserve absolutely what went before, and should be around for generations before being assimilated. In short, IMHO, the word being looked for then, is not “organic” but “incremental”. “Organic” is not relegated to building on a fossilized structure. e. g. One can change the lectionary and alter some of the periscopes while still remaining “organic” . If one looks at a case on Dom Reid’s book - when he speaks of the reform of Alcuin - why does he regard that new influx of material as preserving an organic character - even though eventually the separating preface disappeared?