Organic/Inorganic -- Sheesh!

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

Spiller

Guest
Organic/Inorganic…

Sounds like some “traditionalists” have found their new buzz word! A new universal justification for their personal views. I wonder if most even knew what it meant (outside of food) before they heard about it with regard to the EF?

Actually I still wonder if most know what it means now? And the actual value/non-value of organic development/growth?

“Inorganic” has replaced “invalid” yet is still misused.

One thing is for certain – it’s quickly becoming the most over-used and incorrectly used word on this forum…
 
So tell us, O’ Spiller, what it means then.

See, I thought it meant one growing out of the other, building on what was already there and forming around the environment it’s growing in. A natural procession of extending the already existing substance/item/in-this-case-Liturgy.

Or it means no pesticides, but that’s besides the point.
 
Rawb said:
Or it means no pesticides, but that’s besides the point.
Click to expand...
It can also mean merely whether a chemical is carbon-based or not, too, but only the chemistry geeks mean it that way.

I think it may mean something that originated out of actual use by the faithful, rather than something that was dictated by episcopal decree. This would be great, except that in real time those things that originate out of actual use are interpreted by the rubrics police as “innovations” or “abuses”, which are bad.

As far as I can see, then, “organic” evolution of liturgy, in real terms, is a process that happened a) in the past b) on a glacial timescale and c) in somebody else’s diocese. In other words, in a place and at a time long far from where anyone present was around to object. It’s the same as “innovation”, only looked at from the vantage point when the screams have all died down and the really stupid ideas have hit the dustbin, leaving what turned out to be the good stuff behind.

But I jest where many will see no humor. I meant no harm!! 😉
 
Rawb said:
So tell us, O’ Spiller, what it means then.

See, I thought it meant one growing out of the other, building on what was already there and forming around the environment it’s growing in. A natural procession of extending the already existing substance/item/in-this-case-Liturgy.

Or it means no pesticides, but that’s besides the point.
Click to expand...
At least some people have stopped erroneously screaming “the blah-blah-blah is INVALID!”

Now we hear in it’s place the blah-blah-blah is/is not ORGANIC/INORGANIC or NON-ORGANIC.
 
EasterJoy said:
It can also mean merely whether a chemical is carbon-based or not, too, but only the chemistry geeks mean it that way.

I think it may mean something that originated out of actual use by the faithful, rather than something that was dictated by episcopal decree. This would be great, except that in real time those things that originate out of actual use are interpreted by the rubrics police as “innovations” or “abuses”, which are bad.

As far as I can see, then, “organic” evolution of liturgy, in real terms, is a process that happened a) in the past b) on a glacial timescale and c) in somebody else’s diocese. In other words, in a place and at a time long far from where anyone present was around to object. It’s the same as “innovation”, only looked at from the vantage point when the screams have all died down and the really stupid ideas have hit the dustbin, leaving what turned out to be the good stuff behind.

But I jest where many will see no humor. I meant no harm!! 😉
Click to expand...
:clapping:
BRAVO! BRAVO!!
 
Spiller said:
Organic/Inorganic…

Sounds like some “traditionalists” have found their new buzz word! A new universal justification for their personal views. I wonder if most even knew what it meant (outside of food) before they heard about it with regard to the EF?

Actually I still wonder if most know what it means now? And the actual value/non-value of organic development/growth?

“Inorganic” has replaced “invalid” yet is still misused.

One thing is for certain – it’s quickly becoming the most over-used and incorrectly used word on this forum…
Click to expand...
is this a vegetarian thread, or just a green thread?
 
Spiller said:
At least some people have stopped erroneously screaming “the blah-blah-blah is INVALID!”

Now we hear in it’s place the blah-blah-blah is/is not ORGANIC/INORGANIC or NON-ORGANIC.
Click to expand...
Yes… darn that Joseph Ratzinger and his ridiculous blather about organic development…
 
It’s not "organic!" Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I cannot say it’s “invalid” anymore as I was looking too foolish even to my friends, but now I can use my new mantra: It’s not "organic!!" Yayhoo!!
 
Organic is also used in academia. For example, Jean Piaget’s theory of developmental psychology.

It’s a real help in explaining Catholic doctrine and practice to others.

Besides, it perfectly describes the current liturgical crisis.
 
PrayforMallory said:
Organic is also used in academia. For example, Jean Piaget’s theory of developmental psychology.

It’s a real help in explaining Catholic doctrine and practice to others.

Besides, it perfectly describes the current liturgical crisis.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is it organic?!?
 
Spiller said:
Yeah, that and a new excuse…
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a term that gets throw around, not just in Catholicism but other areas of “import.”

I guess maybe the New Mass just seems to much of a break for some folks.
 
Originally Posted by Rawb
So tell us, O’ Spiller, what it means then.
Click to expand...
See, I thought it meant one growing out of the other, building on what was already there and forming around the environment it’s growing in. A natural procession of extending the already existing substance/item/in-this-case-Liturgy.
Click to expand...
Or it means no pesticides, but that’s besides the point.
Click to expand...
At least some people have stopped erroneously screaming “the blah-blah-blah is INVALID!”

Now we hear in it’s place the blah-blah-blah is/is not ORGANIC/INORGANIC or NON-ORGANIC.
Click to expand...

You failed to give us your definition of ‘organic’ here, ignored my question and didn’t respond to me at all, just provided us with some rather pointless blather.
It’s not “organic!” Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I cannot say it’s “invalid” anymore as I was looking too foolish even to my friends, but now I can use my new mantra: It’s not “organic!!” Yayhoo!!
Click to expand...
Well at least YOU don’t look foolish here…:rolleyes:

To be frank, you sound rude and immature. I personally care very much whether or not a Sacrament is invalid as it refers to whether or not a Sacrament actually took place. If you don’t care about the Sacraments I suppose it does not matter. I, and many others, happen to care very much.

You appear to be annoyed because you cannot logically argue against someone claiming that the Novus Ordo is not an organic development springing from the Tridentine Mass, and so have resorted to name-calling instead. Bravo, quite an intelligent argument. God forbid someone say something you disagree with.

If I am wrong and you can logically argue against this, be my guest, provide us with your argument. Otherwise this thread is just a mindless rant on your part, bemoaning the fact that other people are using a word you *don’t *like about a Mass you happen to like.
 
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...
So very true…

I think most would suggest hand-holding is based on a Protestant practice and/or it takes the spotlight off the Eucharist as our means of unity (which it does not) so therefore it could NEVER be acceptable.

Such a position would be ridiculous of course but more than a few hold it.
 
Rawb said:
You failed to give us your definition of ‘organic’ here, ignored my question and didn’t respond to me at all, just provided us with some rather pointless blather.

Well at least YOU don’t look foolish here…:rolleyes:

To be frank, you sound rude and immature. I personally care very much whether or not a Sacrament is invalid as it refers to whether or not a Sacrament actually took place. If you don’t care about the Sacraments I suppose it does not matter. I, and many others, happen to care very much.

You appear to be annoyed because you cannot logically argue against someone claiming that the Novus Ordo is not an organic development springing from the Tridentine Mass, and so have resorted to name-calling instead. Bravo, quite an intelligent argument. God forbid someone say something you disagree with.

If I am wrong and you can logically argue against this, be my guest, provide us with your argument. Otherwise this thread is just a mindless rant on your part, bemoaning the fact that other people are using a word you *don’t *like about a Mass you happen to like.
Click to expand...
Are we back to talking about the “validity” of sacraments or are we going to stick with organic development?

Anywho, it would seem to me that the Pauline Mass was based not on the Tridentine Mass from the Middle Ages, but sometime far older with its roots in the early church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top