How is organic development supposed to happen?

[ethelzguy]

Are you calling the Pope a master politician? I don’t think that’s very flattering considering that it took courage to do what is right in spite of the overwhelming opposition he had to encounter by releasing the SP. A “master politician” would certainly have gained more votes by pandering more toward the progressives.

What is wrong with recognizing the Popes political skills? I’ve already received one critical PM for saying that. Frankly I think his skill in appealing to both crowds is to be admired.

It’s your translation of the comment that makes it “unflattering”.

The difference being, is that the Pope doesn’t have to “pander” for votes to gain/maintiain his office…which in my mind makes his decision to make the TLM more available even MORE politically savvy.

 

[ethelzguy]

The difference between organic development and inorganic development is like the difference between putting new buttons on a dress and throwing out the dress and sewing an entirely new one. Small changes in the Mass are organic development, while making an entirely new Mass is inorganic.

But nowadays, you can’t sew on ANY kind of button without someone going to the internet yelling “abuse”…

 

[Saint_Gemma]

What is wrong with recognizing the Popes political skills? I’ve already received one critical PM for saying that. Frankly I think his skill in appealing to both crowds is to be admired.

It’s your translation of the comment that makes it “unflattering”.

The difference being, is that the Pope doesn’t have to “pander” for votes to gain/maintiain his office…which in my mind makes his decision to make the TLM more available even MORE politically savvy.

I prefer to think that the pope does things because he thinks that they are right, not because he thinks that they are popular.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

But nowadays, you can’t sew on ANY kind of button without someone going to the internet yelling “abuse”…

If you are the pope, i.e. the final legislator, you can make a small change in the liturgy, and if anyone says that it is an abuse, you do this:

All Catholics who are in good standing with the Church realize that the pope cannot commit a liturgical abuse, and everyone else’s opinions do not matter.

 

[Johndigger]

I think that organic development is going to be very limited in our particular age.

If we think about the Sacred liturgy being a plant, then it has grown two heads. The Pope’s mission at the moment would seem to be to unite these two together so that they do not tear each other apart. This may require both liturgies influencing each other (i.e Particularly, the proper implementation of the OF)

Once peace and unity are restored, when abuse is not so rife, we can think about growth. For the moment, there are more pressing concerns.

Let us clear the fungi that threatens the Ordinary form of Mass before giving attention to the glorious, though slightly neglected Tridentine Mass.

In Christ,

JD

 

[ethelzguy]

If you are the pope, i.e. the final legislator, you can make a small change in the liturgy, and if anyone says that it is an abuse, you do this:

.

Tell that to the pro-TLM, anti-NO crowd. And, BTW, who are we to tell the Pope he can make a “small” change if he likes? Who decides what “small” is?..or, what “is” is?

:banghead:

 

[ethelzguy]

(i.e Particularly, the proper implementation of the OF)

And, of course, the laity get to determine what the “proper” implementation of the OF is, right?

:coffeeread:

 

[Johndigger]

And, of course, the laity get to determine what the “proper” implementation of the OF is, right?

What’s your problem?

Of course I don’t think this. Rome has already decided what is proper and what is not. Gregorian Chant is to have pride of place, the Laity should know how to say parts of the Mass in Latin, the Girm is to be followed, etc

The Bishops and Rome, however, don’t have their eyes everywhere. They do need laity to help them out when abuses take place, so they can address them. (Isn’t this obvious?)

In the love of Christ,

JD

 

[ethelzguy]

What’s your problem?

Of course I don’t think this. Rome has already decided what is proper and what is not. Gregorian Chant is to have pride of place, the Laity should know how to say parts of the Mass in Latin, the Girm is to be followed, etc

The Bishops and Rome, however, don’t have their eyes everywhere. They do need laity to help them out when abuses take place, so they can address them. (Isn’t this obvious?)

In the love of Christ,

JD

Your quote…If we think about the Sacred liturgy being a plant, then it has grown two heads. The Pope’s mission at the moment would seem to be to unite these two together so that they do not tear each other apart. This may require both liturgies influencing each other (i.e Particularly, the proper implementation of the OF)

As if to imply that the TLM is perfect in it’s own right and that the NO needs to be adjusted for “proper” implementation.

It never stops, does it

 

[Johndigger]

Your quote…If we think about the Sacred liturgy being a plant, then it has grown two heads. The Pope’s mission at the moment would seem to be to unite these two together so that they do not tear each other apart. This may require both liturgies influencing each other (i.e Particularly, the proper implementation of the OF)

As if to imply that the TLM is perfect in it’s own right and that the NO needs to be adjusted for “proper” implementation.

It never stops, does it

You obviously have your own preset agenda. This is a shame as it stops any fruitful discussion between us.

Did I not state that “BOTH liturgies influencing EACH OTHER” is part of organic growth? If I was trying to imply that the Tridentine Mass was perfect, then why would I suggest that the Novus Ordo should influence it as part of organic growth?

With the Novus Ordo Mass being based on the Tridentine Mass, isn’t it obvious that the Tridentine Mass will affect the Novus Ordo rather than the vice-versa?

It’s not about bashing the Novus Ordo or the laity being the abuse-police. You are unfortunately and clearly determined to ignore and misrepresent every point that I bring to the discussion table.

In the love of Our Lord,

JD

 

[Sarpedon]

There is already talk of how the EF could experience true organic growth. For example, expanding the current lectionary is something that most Traditionalists would probably welcome. There has also been talk of having congregations respond “vocally” to the Prayers at the foot of the altar.

Why are these changes deemed acceptable, while others, such as the mass being in the vernacular, are not? Who does the deciding? Traditionalists? The Church? If it is the Church, then her answer seems clear, at least to me…

 

[Sarpedon]

That’s about as organic as demolishing high altars, communion rails, confessionals, statues, and gold chalices. Anything else you can think of to provoke the trads?

Yes, lots. Traditionalists seem to draw this oddly arbitrary line between acceptable growth and unacceptable growth. labeling the former “organic” and the latter “inorganic”.

 

[ethelzguy]

Why are these changes deemed acceptable, while others, such as the mass being in the vernacular, are not? Who does the deciding? Traditionalists? The Church? If it is the Church, then her answer seems clear, at least to me…

Exactly my point all along…

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Tell that to the pro-TLM, anti-NO crowd. And, BTW, who are we to tell the Pope he can make a “small” change if he likes? Who decides what “small” is?..or, what “is” is?

:banghead:

Fine. He can make any change that he likes, and if anyone says that it is an abuse, he can do this:

 

[Sarpedon]

Small changes in the Mass are organic development, while making an entirely new Mass is inorganic.

Whenever the slightest “small change” is made to a mass, traditionalists flip out and post it on youtube. At the same time, they make it clear that they accept “organic development”.

Perhaps organic development is something that has to be approved by the church first. This would rule out things like holding hands during the Our Father, but it would render all appoved changes to the liturgy acceptable.

I’m not sure on this point, but I think the church says that changing the liturgy from the rubrics is morally wrong. If this is true, then I don’t intend to oppose it. However, the question about whether organic development can still happen or whether such changes can be made on a local level remains.

 

[SJP]

Why are these changes deemed acceptable.

First of all, I did not say that such changes would be acceptable. I only gave them as examples of potential organic development.

Secondly, common sense dictates that expading the lectionary/adding a vocal response is completely different than creating a new Mass! In the first case (expanding the lectionary) the form of the Mass remains unchanged.

 

[Sarpedon]

First of all, I did not say that such changes would be acceptable. I only gave them as examples of potential organic development.

So you’re saying that some would not accept organic development?

Secondly, common sense dictates that expading the lectionary/adding a vocal response is completely different than creating a new Mass! In the first case (expanding the lectionary) the form of the Mass remains unchanged.

Do you think the form has experienced organic development?

 

[SJP]

So you’re saying that some would not accept organic development?

Do you think the form has experienced organic development?

Which form are you talking about?

 

[Sarpedon]

Which form are you talking about?

The form of the mass itself. I.e. do you think that the Roman Rite has experienced acceptable organic changes in form over the years?

 

[Freshman88]

Yes, lots. Traditionalists seem to draw this oddly arbitrary line between acceptable growth and unacceptable growth. labeling the former “organic” and the latter “inorganic”.

It isn’t arbitrary at all. One needs only to pick up a book on liturgics to understand organic growth.

Organic growth is change experienced in a given liturgical rite, which respects the given characteristics of that rite.

For instance, sacred silence was a characteristic of our Roman rite. Yet all of sudden we have changed to “active participation” of the laity. Thus the original characteristic of sacred silence has been lost, and this change can be deemed inorganic. In the case of the East, there has always been an element of vocal involvment of the congregation… thus in there rite a totally different tradition has developed. The eastern equivalent of Removing sacred silence, would be to add sacred silence in the East. Both moves are equally inorganic and disrespectful to the characteristics of the respective rites.

An example of organic growth would be addition of the feast of Corpus Christi in the medieval ages. It was brought about by mystics and saints, who wanted to take a take a day to focus on the mystery of Christ’s body. It respected all the previous characteristics of the rite while highlighting a theological aspect already present within our rite and theology.

Another example would be the evolution of that piece of architecture which divides the congregation from the altar. In the East this naturally developed into the ornate Iconostasis, while in the West it developed into the communion rail. In both cases it has its origin in early Christianity, and arguably old Jewish temple worship. This is an excellent example of organic growth because it also highlights the importance and validity of the various rites. To know the importance of this piece of architecture, one needs only to ask an Easterner how important the iconostasis is. It makes as much sense to remove altar rails in the West, as it does to remove the iconostasis in the East.

---

Also this comment that traditionalist discussed validity one day and organic growth the next, is absolute rubbish. These types of comments don’t reflect a change in argument, but the different stances of traditionalists. Only extreme traditionalists will discuss the validity of the NO, while this discussion of inorganic/organic growth happens within the Church (groups such as FSSP/ICRSS), and even from such notable theologians as Cardinal Ratzinger.