How is organic development supposed to happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sarpedon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sarpedon

Guest
I continually hear traditionalists say that they accept “organic development” in the liturgy.

How is this development supposed to happen? Traditionalists seem to get worked up over the slightest change in the liturgy. Why can’t holding hands during the our father or other such practices be considered organic development?
 
Here’s a good thread on this where I think this topic was flushed out:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217379

Here was the opening post I made:

This concept seems very nebulous to me. Sometimes it seems organic=small. But then, at what point does organic change become inorganic? How many or what percentage of words or actions have to be changed for a change to be inorganic?

Does organic change simply equal good change? That just seems subjective.

The best way I can think of it is change that comes from the bottom up–and therefore organic can be good or bad and nonorganic can be good or bad. Let me explain.

Let’s say the liturgy is like a plant in a garden. As it grows, the gardner can either allow it to grow or prune it if it grows in an undesirable manner. The liturgy is the plant and the bishop and ultimately the Pope is the gardner (with help from the curia)–as things are introduced at the local level, they can either be kept or pruned back. Liturgical dance would be an example of bad organic development which the chief gardner has said should be pruned away, but which has not been in some places.

However, the gardener can also prune things away and rather than allowing natural growth, he can graft pieces on. This would be the top down approach which has pretty much dominated the liturgical landscape in the 450 years or so since Trent. Again, this is not necessarily bad thing as most people here would agree the papal changes made during that period until 1970 or so were good (obviously, the “goodness” of the changes since is debated a lot in this forum).

Anyway, is this a proper understanding or not?
 
This so-called “organic” growth can not happen any more.

For the first 1900-ish years of the Church, things could slowly, but gradually change and be accepted.

With technology today, NOTHING can change without stirring up a huge outcry from the traditionalists.

Every Sunday night / Monday morning, there is another thread started here at CAF (or on other forums) ranting about “what I saw”, or “what we did” at Mass this weekend…“abuse, abuse”, etc., ad nauseum, infinitum.

I think that is why the term “organic” has come into vogue recently. The “invalid/illicit” thing has been beaten to death, so now there is a new, totally subjective term for the dissenters to work with.

So, ANY “change” within the Church, for all practical purposes, will have to be by “inorganic decree”, rather than “organic growth”.

TBL
 
The attached pictures is a posture that a lot of Catholics seem to be very fond of now during the Our Father…especially during the part when we say “For the Kingdom, the power, and the glory…”
Would you like for that to be considered organic as well?
Sarpedon said:
I continually hear traditionalists say that they accept “organic development” in the liturgy.

How is this development supposed to happen? Traditionalists seem to get worked up over the slightest change in the liturgy. Why can’t holding hands during the our father or other such practices be considered organic development?
Click to expand...
 
ethelzguy said:
This so-called “organic” growth can not happen any more.

For the first 1900-ish years of the Church, things could slowly, but gradually change and be accepted.

With technology today, NOTHING can change without stirring up a huge outcry from the traditionalists.

Every Sunday night / Monday morning, there is another thread started here at CAF (or on other forums) ranting about “what I saw”, or “what we did” at Mass this weekend…“abuse, abuse”, etc., ad nauseum, infinitum.

I think that is why the term “organic” has come into vogue recently. The “invalid/illicit” thing has been beaten to death, so now there is a new, totally subjective term for the dissenters to work with.

So, ANY “change” within the Church, for all practical purposes, will have to be by “inorganic decree”, rather than “organic growth”.

TBL
Click to expand...
Absolutely no question! The traditionalists were getting hammered for their misuse of the terms “invalid/illicit” and they greedily latched onto “organic.”
 
michaeldaniels said:
The attached pictures is a posture that a lot of Catholics seem to be very fond of now during the Our Father…especially during the part when we say “For the Kingdom, the power, and the glory…”
Would you like for that to be considered organic as well?
Click to expand...
Okay, I really don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not…

But this is hilarious!!!
 
michaeldaniels said:
Would you like for that to be considered organic as well?
Click to expand...
My personal preferences don’t come into play and I’m not sure what the groundhog thing has to do with it…

My point is- how is organic change supposed to happen today? What changes to the liturgy are considered “organic” by traditionalists? Is organic development still supposed to happen, or is it finished now?
 
Absolutely no question! The traditionalists were getting hammered for their misuse of the terms “invalid/illicit” and they greedily latched onto “organic.”
Click to expand...
I would take this member’s posts regarding this topic with a grain of salt. 😊

In another thread, devoted exclusively to the concept of organic liturgical development, he was directed to writings of our Holy Father Benedict XVI while the latter was still a cardinal. The member repeatedly ranted and raved that traditionalists had seized the term organic development and that no such thing was actually possible. Never once did he bother responding to the Holy Father’s remarks recognizing the concept. Now the same member has taken up the same mantra here.
 
Chatter163 said:
The member repeatedly ranted and raved that traditionalists had seized the term organic development and that no such thing was actually possible. Never once did he bother responding to the Holy Father’s remarks recognizing the concept.
Click to expand...
Did he actually take issue with whether organic development is possible, or did he take issue with traditionalists supporting it while at the same time basicaly preventing it from happening?

BTW I am still waiting for a traditionalist response to my question.

I believe I remember reading in the CCT that no priest can change the liturgy. If this is the case, then is organic development still supposed to happen? Is it finished? If it is finished, why? .
 
Sarpedon said:
Did he actually take issue with whether organic development is possible, or did he take issue with traditionalists supporting it while at the same time basicaly preventing it from happening?

BTW I am still waiting for a traditionalist response to my question.

I believe I remember reading in the CCT that no priest can change the liturgy. If this is the case, then is organic development still supposed to happen? Is it finished? If it is finished, why? .
Click to expand...
I, too, am still waiting for a traditionalist to give an example of what would now be considered “organic” development, and how it would take place.

:coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :whistle: :whistle:
 
Sarpedon said:
Did he actually take issue with whether organic development is possible, or did he take issue with traditionalists supporting it while at the same time basicaly preventing it from happening?

BTW I am still waiting for a traditionalist response to my question.

I believe I remember reading in the CCT that no priest can change the liturgy. If this is the case, then is organic development still supposed to happen? Is it finished? If it is finished, why? .
Click to expand...
I believe that organic development is over. Pope Benedict just said Mass where he had everyone kneel to receive communion. That is not organic developement. That is going back to what was once considered the most sacred way to receive Christ.
The liturgy is scheduled to be changed. “for all” will be changed to “for many” and the creed will begin 'I believe" instead of “we believe”. These are not organic changes.
A priest or bishop making changes to the liturgy is not organic development. It is what Pope Benedict calls 'deformation of the liturgy"

Pope Benedict
“Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently** led to deformations **of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how **arbitrary deformations of the liturgy **caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church…What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
 
ethelzguy said:
I, too, am still waiting for a traditionalist to give an example of what would now be considered “organic” development, and how it would take place.

:coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :whistle: :whistle:
Click to expand...
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.
However, demanding examples of how the EF will experience organic growth is like demanding to know how many flowers will bloom on a plant… there is no sure way to know.

Your mindset displays the central problem with the modernist “spirit of Vatican II” reformers. There is always a call for change! change! change! How can we change things to make them better! This attitude betrays true worship, for worship is not something that we create, it is a gift from God that has been preserved and cared for by past generations.

That is why Cardinal Ratzinger said:
**with respect to the Liturgy, he [The Pope] has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis – the handing-on of tradition./**QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Our_Refuge said:
I believe that organic development is over. Pope Benedict just said Mass where he had everyone kneel to receive communion. That is not organic developement. That is going back to what was once considered the most sacred way to receive Christ.

It is the most sacred way to receive Chrsit! It’s what all Chrsitians had done for 2000 years until the reforms after V2.

The liturgy is scheduled to be changed. “for all” will be changed to “for many” and the creed will begin 'I believe" instead of “we believe”. These are not organic changes.

**“For all” should be changed to “for many” because that is what Jesus Christ said. **

A priest or bishop making changes to the liturgy is not organic development. It is what Pope Benedict calls 'deformation of the liturgy"

Pope Benedict
“Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently** led to deformations **of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how **arbitrary deformations of the liturgy **caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church…What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
Click to expand...
Music to my ears!
 
ethelzguy said:
With technology today, NOTHING can change without stirring up a huge outcry from the traditionalists…

So, ANY “change” within the Church, for all practical purposes, will have to be by “inorganic decree”, rather than “organic growth”.
Click to expand...
I would point out that the recent changes with regards to the EF elicited outcry from other quarters in the Church, as well. Although it is now the traditionalists who are going “organic”, this isn’t a “traditionalist thing.” We have to assume that there has never been a change, organic or otherwise, that was ever implemented in the Church without a complaint from somebody.

Change within the Church is going to happen, and not in just one way, whether anyone in particular likes it or not. That there is always an outcry about it isn’t a bad thing, either, even if it isn’t always pleasant.
 
ethelzguy said:
He HAS been a master politician with regard to appeasing the TLM crowd.
Click to expand...
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.
 
“Why can’t holding hands during the our father or other such practices be considered organic development?”

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?
 
EasterJoy said:
We have to assume that there has never been a change, organic or otherwise, that was ever implemented in the Church without a complaint from somebody.
Click to expand...
You’re right about that. I attended the EF in a parish I hadn’t visited before this morning. The readings were in vernacular all right but done by a woman and the readings bore little resemblance to those in the handmissal. (Feast of Corpus Christi) So for those that wish the entire EF in vernacular, be careful for what you wish. You may need to buy another Bible instead.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top