G
Genesis315
Guest
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?
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?
…The Organic Development of the Liturgy.
It’s not as if Trent ‘invented’ the Missal; indeed, it just standardised it.
